82 Actions

Would this patent application cover all location aware games?To be pedantic, the independent claims -- although vague about what "location" means in different contexts -- are specific in that they require a second user being able to view the gameplay. Also, the requirement of timing to establish a "cadence of play" probably means non-real time and turn-based games are not covered.

CALL FOR PRIOR ART: (Twitter) “Device independent message distribution platform” (8401009)As an aside, the multi-server vs server difference is not important, because multiple machines are still involved: the implicitly mentioned server / "computer processor", the "first user's" and the "second user's" devices. It doesn't really matter if they are servers or smartphones because they're all simply "computing devices", so in that sense, Miski does not differ significantly. The client vs. server distinction might only matter in Miski when it comes to re-posting, which these claims do not address anyway. The difference in delivery methods is also not relevant.

Mar22

comment

CALL FOR PRIOR ART: (Twitter) “Device independent message distribution platform” (8401009)Ah, I see, users subscribe to a combination of user + subject. That certainly is more Twitter-like, though it is still not exactly the same (i.e. requiring the creation of a "*" subject). Again, seems pedantic, but really, even tiny differences matter in interpreting claims. If the writeup had explicitly mentioned this possibility, it would make a stronger case for obviousness. However, from a quick trip to USPTO PAIR, it seems the followed/follower mechanic elements were what finally differentiated the claim from all the prior art, so Miski might yet prove to be very relevant.